I think the problem with animal expermintations is the foolishness behind it.
Testing animals to see if a poison is good?
Sound like Joseph Mengele to me. Oh wait it is cruel to think this way what is the difference I ask?
Unless someone is involved with some accident most sickness to my knowledge can be healed thru natural means.
We can justify all that we wish but torture is torture.
Big G.
Originally posted by pradtfThe rats are goe now - the trap did work.
hey steerpike! here are some ideas for dealing with your rats that you might gve a try:
in frinedship,
prad
It seems to me there can be valid reasons for killing rats.
First argument is for conservation reasons - rats and some vulnerable island species can not live togehter. If the rats do not go, you have extinction and one more species joins the dodo. Whole populations of rats have been exterminated on some small islands - allowing birds from declining populations to be transferred and thrive when free from predators. I could not stand and watch a kakapo chick being killed by a rat - when the total numbers of chicks of this flightless parrot last year was only 24. And that was a great year - often rats, stoats and cats kill every single chick.
http://www.talkwildlife.citymax.com/page/page/187979.htm
Secondly is the effect rats have on crops. If you are a vegetarian, the cereals and nuts you eat are also favoured by rats. A rat population will double in months and keep on doubling as long as the food holds out - you may recall pictures of the Australian mouse plague. Rabbits can also be a problem - a single cute litle bunny can eat hundreds of seedlings every night and keep coming back for more. Someone else may be doing the killing for you but this is no different from those who don't mind eating meat as long as it is wrapped in plastic. Don't fool yourself - animals die so we may eat.
My point is - we slaughter rats using poison all the time. Do people care about this? These are almost exactly the same animals used in labs. Is there a double standard here?
To me, the use of lab rats is necessary. The farmer or conservationist does not enjoy killing rats - but there are valid reasons why it has to be done. Similarly, therw are some areas of science that still require whole animal experiemtation - and the numbers involved and the suffering for individual animals is far less than the countless rats poisoned by agriculture or delibrately suffocated in their burrows by heavy machinery
used in rubbuish dumps.
Originally posted by steerpikei think the problem is that while you insist there are 'valid reasons', you will justify whatever is done rather than finding another way. in some situations (see chicken accident post), i do not see another way given the circumstances - it was a crisis.
It seems to me there can be valid reasons for killing rats.
First argument is for conservation reasons
Secondly is the effect rats have on crops.
Don't fool yourself - animals die so we may eat.
My point is - we slaughter r ...[text shortened]... ble standard here?
To me, the use of lab rats is necessary.
however, your arguments of conservation and crops, can carry with them a certain bias that prevents other possibilities from surfacing. for instance, i agree that the rats must be controlled for the sake of the environment - but once we decide that we will kill them because it is the only way to do this, it negates further thought. it may turn out that this is the only way to do it in the end, but sometimes the way these decisions are reached are through the 'we've always done things this way' method or out of pure convenience. again with the crops, rather than jumping to kill, why not try to find an alternate food source for them - well, it is probably because the farming that is done is en masse. we have crops too in our small garden and of course some of it is shared by the rats and the slugs, but it is not a problem because it is small. we once dealt with a bio-dynamic farmer and i questioned him about insect problems and how he killed them - he said he doesn't, because insects 'organize things for him' taking out the bad plants.
so i'm not 'fooling myself', animals don't need to die because we'll starve otherwise. people have been and do farm without slaughering every varmint or insect that come along - but the motives and the scale has to be accordingly different.
again, assumptions such as the 'use of lab rats is necessary' immediately justifies their use - we immediately stop looking for other ways, because 'this is how we do things' or 'it's too much trouble to find another way'.
let me give you a more 'human' example. cesarean births were much more common, two or three decades ago because someone noticed that it was faster and more convenient for the doctor regardless of the effects on the mother. they were routinely practised even if they were not necessary.
and here is my own experience. when i separated my shoulder after a cycling accident, i managed to ride to a hospital. the doctor examining me said that they would have to put pins in and that this would be done by the surgeon the next day. (they also tried to do the tentanus shot thing with me but i was sufficiently knowledgeable to know how silly that was so i insisted they not - to quell their fears i reassured them that my own doctor would deal with it, which he did by laughing at them a few days later.) so i go to the surgeon, the next day at the hospital and he tells me it is quite a serious separation, but that he was not going to pin it. he said they used to do that sort of thing as a matter of practice, but these days they prefer to let things heal naturally as much as possible.
if we make a premise, it is a good idea to put it to the test regularly and think outside the box. that is the only way real progress is made. there are almost always alternatives, but we won't see them, if we stick to dogma and allow the assumptions coagulate into axioms.
but then, this is the point of this thread, isn't it?
in friendship,
prad
Rats would make Malthus shake his head - they reproduce very quickly.A single pair can produce a colony of 2000 in a year - a new litter every month. Feeding them is great, but I hope you have plenty of food in a year of so. Of course, as the colony becomes overcrowded, stress and cannibalism will keep numbers down - very much like a battery chicken farm. Very frew chickens starve to death so there is that difference.
I suppose when they cleared Whenua Hou Island of rats they could have live captured them - although I suspect most rats would have figured out the cage and cheese was not a good idea once they saw the less bright captured. Much easier to kill a flightless parrot chick, unprotected as its parents sought the litle food not consumed by hordes of rats. Once you catch the rats, then there is the problem of waht to do with several thousand live feral rats - I suppose KFC (KFR?) might have taken them but they woud not have been ethical.
Easiest way - go for it, rattie. The kakapo has wondered this country for a million years - it has had its day. The world belongs to the vicious, not the cute and cuddly.
😛
Originally posted by steerpikeas i told you earlier, our rats have been with us for 4 years at around 70. there is plenty of food in the compost and plenty of room to roam around in both the roof and the woodpile - so i don't think they are being cannibilistic. there are perhaps some predators do keep the population low or perhaps the rats are being extra nice and keeping things under control. at any rate, we are all coexisting without getting in each others' way.
Feeding them is great, but I hope you have plenty of food in a year of so.
The world belongs to the vicious, not the cute and cuddly.
it may look like the world belongs to the vicious, but there is more symbiosis around than some would care to admit. besides, the meek are supposed to inherit the earth 🙂
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfAs with many issues, it boils down to where you are prepared to draw the line. In my view testing cosmetics on animals is vile and should have been banned years ago, and dissections are unecessary now that we know what goes on inside - I was one of those who opted out. But the argument that animal experiments for medical research have cost more lives than they have saved... that I really can't accept. The average life-expectency in the UK was just 40 years old as recently as the beginning of the 20th century - a hundred years later it is nearly double that. Now I'd accept that there's been the odd cock up - no one's claiming that animals are perfect models - but in terms of lengthening lives, animal research seems to have served medicine in pretty good stead. They're not nice, I can see the moral argument against, but in practical terms, it's pretty clear to me that they work.
you are not wrong!
animal testing has been done (though somewhat lessened due to pressure from AR groups and the general public) for all kinds of ridiculous things from cosmetics to cleaners to even car crash testing. GM was the last company to give up this department about 5 years ago, i believe.
most people will see this sort of thing as not only unn ...[text shortened]... test may not have the slightest legitimacy with respect to human health.
in friendship,
prad
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoey
As with many issues, it boils down to where you are prepared to draw the line. In my view testing cosmetics on animals is vile and should have been banned years ago, and dissections are unecessary now that we know what goes on inside - I was one of those who opted out.
rich, it's not so much where, but when. cosmetic testing was considered a very valid and necessary practice at one time - even though everyone knew it didn't make anything safer. the real reason it was done (and still is, in some situations) is to provide 'legal' substantiation that the accepted legal practices had been followed. that way, when someone got a rash (or worse), they had no 'legal' grounds to sue the company because the 'legal' test had been carried out. as pressure from the public grew (thanks partly to AR groups), companies began abandoning these practises which also shows how pointless they were in the first place.
it's great that you opted out. that takes courage when you consider the pressures on kids to perform in school. again, at one time this would be considered unthinkable. i remember a fellow physics teacher commenting in the late 70s to the biology teacher about the kid who didn't want to do dissection and how he certainly wouldn't want go to him if he ever became a doctor, because he hadn't learned how to dissect. it is surprising to hear such gibberish especially from a physics teacher. now there are several countries that do not require or ban dissection in school. btw, if you want to see a great clip against the dissection rationale go to www.petatv.com/psa.html and click on the picture of alicia silverstone - she would have been proud of you!
But the argument that animal experiments for medical research have cost more lives than they have saved... that I really can't accept.
well, i'm not sure anyone has done a proper statistical survey that definitively shows whether animal experiments have saved more lives or killed more lives, but you cannot deny that they do give misleading and dangerous results. i will repost some of that from the other thread later.
The average life-expectency in the UK was just 40 years old as recently as the beginning of the 20th century - a hundred years later it is nearly double that.
this argument is so slanted that that you have to squint to be able to see it. animal research didn't create the increase in life expectancy. all kinds of other things did, primarily better hygene, better and safer working conditions, better food supplies (in some cases). if you go back in history, you will see that the life expectancy stats come from selected groups - workers had a lower expectancy than those wallowing in relative luxury and they were usually the ones who were surveyed - so if you improve their living conditions of course they will live longer. if you go to some places in the 3rd world, you may find that they are envious of the life expectancy UKers enjoyed at the turn of the 20th century. on the other hand, if you ask the hunza's who hang around on average for around 120 yrs (i seem to recall) because they don't live unhealthly lives, they'll wonder what's the big deal - this is how it's supposed to be, isn't it?
this is the same sort of argument that is used to justify vaccinations. oh yes, we all know that vaccinations have rid the world of all these horrible diseases, but if you look at little behind the scenes, you will find a lucrative business coveriing up a complete scam. hey how about starting a thread on vaccinations: truth or quackery - it will be revealing and reviling.
They're not nice, I can see the moral argument against, but in practical terms, it's pretty clear to me that they work.
but if you take a real look at how they don't work and how much stuff is wasted on it and how a lot of those problems would literally just disappear if we put our priority on being healthy (as bigg wrote earlier) rather than trying to 'fix' the sick (after we get them there in the first place), you may change your mind.
i will post on this later and i will also say my stuff will have nothing to do with the 'moral arguments', though they do provide a most valid objection, but i leave that to someone else. human health does not need to depend on animals by any means.
in friendship,
prad
Prad,
The average life-expectency in the UK was just 40 years old as recently as the beginning of the 20th century - a hundred years later it is nearly double that.
this argument is so slanted that that you have to squint to be able to see it. animal research didn't create the increase in life expectancy. all kinds of other things did, primarily better hygene, better and safer working con ...[text shortened]... bout starting a thread on vaccinations: truth or quackery - it will be revealing and reviling.
Well written and thought put into this.
Are people really living?
I think this is the real question.
Most people over the age of 60 are barely hanging on and the main cause is what they put into there mouths and minds.
Big G.
Hey. I'm sorry if me jumping in with my opinions like this is against some 'posting etiquette' or whatever, but I've never done this before! However, I'm sure my opinions will offend more than the way I say them.
Anyway. My view on the animal-testing subject is that it is perfectly sensible - nay, essential - to test on animals. This is because if one human life can be saved by the use of a drug developed by testing on animals then it is worth the lives of a whole species of animal, simply becuase humans are better. We have rights; animals do not. (Please do not interpret this to mean I am advocating treating animals in an inhumane manner for no reason - cruelty to animals is wrong and should not go unpunished. However, testing on animals is perfectly fine as the ends outweigh the means by such a large amount.)
For example, before drugs were developed to treat it - which were, of course, tested on animals - diabetes was lethal; an incredibly dangerous affliction. Nowadays, thanks to the drugs developed by testing on animals, it is not a serious problem - people with diabetes can live long and healthy lives. This would not have been possible without testing on animals. There are countless other examples like this.
It seems clear to me that animal testing is a good thing. No one of a sane mind would compare the life of an animal to that of a human. Therefore, everything possible should be done to try and improve the life of humans. At the moment that includes testing on animals. It is an essential activity.
Originally posted by jimmy942welcome jimmy942 to the forums and don't worry about jumping in!
Hey. I'm sorry if me jumping in with my opinions like this is against some 'posting etiquette' or whatever, but I've never done this before!
you are certainly not violating any posting ettiquette and i hope you enjoy contributing to these discussions 🙂
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfI have to disagree, Pradft. I had asked you in another thread if AR is more concerned with treatment of animals or the stoppage of using animals for food- since my point was touched on here, I'll reply in this thread. Population grows and declines in spurts so there may be a time, say your 4 years with your 70 rats, when the population is pretty constant. But that population will grow substantially, just give it a little time and you will have tons of those critters running around! If catching and preserving animals like you say were a widespread practice it would be chaos in my opinion. Say you have a little rat farm outside of town where rats caught in the town were taken to live out their lives. Pretty soon there would be so many of them that they would resort to cannibalism, and escape to find room and food, and pretty soon the town that tried so hard to be humane would be infested.
as i told you earlier, our rats have been with us for 4 years at around 70. there is plenty of food in the compost and plenty of room to roam around in both the roof and the woodpile - so i don't think they are being cannibilistic. there ar ...[text shortened]... ting without getting in each others' way.
in friendship,
prad
I read an article the other day- and I'm sorry, I should have waited to post when I wasn't so tired and had the time to look it up, but I'll wing it and if anyone is interested I can find the info. about it later. But there is a city in I want to say India? But I could be wrong. Somewhere over there 😀, a certain type of monkey were harbored in this city because their population was declining and this city is very animal rights oriented. But now, the population of the monkeys has grown so much that they are overrunning the city! These monkeys are in the streets, they get into public buildings and destroy papers, hang out of windows and create a general nuisance. Now they have nowhere to move the monkeys to, because the place that they got them from in the first place refuses to take them back. So what in the beginning seemed to be an excellent idea to help out a few harmless monkeys has become a much larger issue than they ever imagined. It is a serious problem that they don't know how to fix.
That is the type of thing that would happen if we saved all the animals. It sounds like a great idea, and I am glad that it has worked out for you, It's just not realistic in the long term. Okay, I am going to go now and maybe I will try to find that article before I go to bed. I'd like to read it again myself.
😀NC
EDIT: You know, I should have posted in the other thread because this does not pertain to animal experiments- sorry about that!
There are really two arguments against animal testing :
well, i'm not sure anyone has done a proper statistical survey that definitively shows whether animal experiments have saved more lives or killed more lives, but you cannot deny that they do give misleading and dangerous results. i will repost some of that from the other thread later.
It is wrong to kill any animal for any reason.
I don't agree with this - there are reasons to kill animals. Some reasons are more valid than others - kiling a predator which is forcing a rare and endangered animal into extinction is a stromg reason, others would kill sick and injured animals or for those animals where providing a home is dificult or impossible. Other people kill animals for a burger or for sport - draw your own line.
I would list animal research as a valid use of animals - and sometimes this involves discomfort and death.The second argument is animal research is wrong because it does not alway show the rignt answer. The extreme view is that it always misleads and no good has ever come from animal research.
To argue animals are different from us and research is misleading denies the facts we are animals. We are just one more species,To argue you cannot extrapolate from aninals to humans is the same as saying we know absolutely nothing about a new species of whale as we have not dissected or analysed a member of its species. We know because it is a mammal and we know about mammals.
I am not saying mistakes have not been made, but you are denying a fact if you claim animal reserch is useless. Modern genetics is based on the fruit fly and E.coli - to give one example. (Q - Where are the AR people where bacteria and flies are being experimented on?)
I am interested - where is the non-animal resarch on malaria? It kills millions, and and has a complex life cycle. Non AR research on infectious diseases is nonsense - all infectious diseases are caused by living animals and the mosquito and malaria parasitic worm need to be studied in order to control the disease. Or perhaps children dying is preferrable to testing insecticide on mosquites as long as the children are poor, black and far away?
Does AR have a cuteness quotient on lab animals? Monkeys and beagle research and you bomb the homes of experimenters, rats and mice worth spray paint, really don't care about reptiles, insects and bacteria?
Originally posted by ncrosbyi do not think it is going to be unmanageable because it's been pretty well like this for 4 yrs (we've lived here for nearly 6). if we were to have an explosion of rats, i think we would have found out sooner and be overrun with them already (considering the rat reproduction rate). perhaps we have predators that help keep the population down or perhaps it is something else (but cannbalism seems completely unlikely). there is no reason to assume there will be a problem down the road.
Population grows and declines in spurts so there may be a time, say your 4 years with your 70 rats, when the population is pretty constant. But that population will grow substantially, just give it a little time and you will have tons of t ...[text shortened]... s worked out for you, It's just not realistic in the long term.
i am not suggesting that we 'preserve' animals unnaturally nor introduce them in places where there are no checks and balances. this is what has happened in many countries, because of carelessness and a lack of understanding. however, some people are too quick to take whatever appears to be the simplest option which is to kill the animals rather than look at the alternatives - one of them being to reexamine their own impact on the area which is usually what creates the problem in the first place.
as far as the monkey business, i spent my very early days in just such a town shantitikatan, india. and we did have monkeys running around. it wasn't a problem then, but i can see why it could become a problem., what i don't understand is why you say they can't be moved - the place they came from may not take them back, but surely there is plenty of forest left in india for relocation. please do find the article, if you can - i am curious about this.
i think your conclusion about 'what would happen ...' is erroneous for 2 reasons.
the first is we are never going to save all the animals. in fact, we are never going to save all the people either though that appears to be one of the goals of medical science to save human lives. you might consider the argument you have put forth in light of this. if medical science is successful with what it claims it is trying to do and is able to eradicate disease and this becomes a 'widespread practice', would we have the same chaos you write about? remember the star trek episode where that civilization captures kirk to develop a killer vaccine to keep their population down?
the second is the assumption that if we save the animals (given the fact we will not save all of them), that this will create longterm problems. this assumes that nature has no say in the matter. nature has managed very well despite human interference. in the past, species have come and gone. nowsdays, from what i understand there is more going than coming. what i think would be more helpful than assuming that the longterm will be disasterous would be if we looked beyond the convenient alternatives and examined our own motivations for doing things. we don't need to do this as a kindness to animals - it is a good idea for our own species.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by steerpikethe first argument is not exclusive to animal research, but it can go a long way to getting people to look for alternatives. if we say, we will not kill people (even those on death row as kirksey posted) to benefit other people, we look for other means. similarly, if we adopt the stance that we will not use animals our energies will go towards other solutions. if we don't, they won't and we will keep doing things the way they have 'always been done'.
It is wrong to kill any animal for any reason.
I would list animal research as a valid use of animals - and sometimes this involves discomfort and death.
The second argument is animal research is wrong because it does not alway show t ...[text shortened]... don't care about reptiles, insects and bacteria?
[/b]
the second argument is very vaild and i will provide you with some evidence shortly.
btw, animal research involves far more than discomfort - it involves torture of incredible proportions. perhaps i should give some evidence of this as well - just let me know if you want me to elaborate.
as far as your last statement, you seem to be suddenly determined to vilefy AR, by having them bomb the homes of experimenters - hopefully, i presume, while their little children are still in them for that would greatly add to the cuteness factor. i thought we were engaged in a discussion of somewhat different spirit. i think you will find that AR activists pose far less threat to the human species than many other humans do - and there is certainly ample proof of this.
AR activists have different agendas dealing with different animals and this is not based on the cuteness factor - though if the cuteness factor can be utilized for public support (eg the save the seals campaign), it often is.
in friendship,
prad